Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Gulf of Mexico Oil Thread (merged)

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Mexico May Have Hit the Mother Lode in Oil Find..

Unread postby eastbay » Wed 15 Mar 2006, 13:05:13

... 10 to 11 billion barrels... wow, close, but no cigar. By the time they get it going it'll satisfy about 11 weeks of world oil demand. It's chump change folks. And it's the best find in years anywhere. The End Is Near.
Got Dharma?

Everything is Impermanent. Shakyamuni Buddha
User avatar
eastbay
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7186
Joined: Sat 18 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: One Mile From the Columbia River

Re: Mexico May Have Hit the Mother Lode in Oil Find..

Unread postby Starvid » Wed 15 Mar 2006, 13:20:10

Well, it's not chump change. It's about 0,5 % of all the oil in the world (oil sands etc not included).

And who knows, maybe there is some truth in the argument that there is still lots of oil to find in the countries with highly regulated oil sectors, like Saudi Arabia.

The relevant question is: are we going to bet everything on that theory being correct?
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
User avatar
Starvid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Uppsala, Sweden

Re: Mexico May Have Hit the Mother Lode in Oil Find..

Unread postby Eli » Wed 15 Mar 2006, 13:30:59

So this what we are left with, a great new oil find that is out in the deep water of the Gulf of Mexico.

That should be easy as pie to get at, they just need to engineer a system that can withstand a category 5 + super hurricane. No problem.

As an oil executive that is exactly what I would want to do, rush out invest billions, and hope against hope that it all does not end up sinking to the bottom of the GoM.

The tower of Babble comes to my mind. The last desperate attempts of mankind to try and control the world in which he lives, only to watch his best efforts destroyed before his eyes.
Last edited by Eli on Wed 15 Mar 2006, 13:45:41, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Eli
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3709
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: In a van down by the river

Re: Mexico May Have Hit the Mother Lode in Oil Find..

Unread postby Ibon » Wed 15 Mar 2006, 13:38:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kochevnik', ':')!:

Something is REALLY, REALLY rotten in the state of Mexico.


Yes. They have been taking notes and have learned the tricks of the trade. This is right in line with the recent Exxon advertisements disputing peak oil, right up there with the inflated OPEC reserve reporting to get increased quotas. Actually quite status quo behaviour, nothing particularly rotten about the state to Mexico.
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9572
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Mexico May Have Hit the Mother Lode in Oil Find..

Unread postby Leanan » Wed 15 Mar 2006, 13:44:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o wonderfully convenient for them to find a 'replacement' at EXACTLY the same time the main field is becoming greatly depleted.


Some have pointed out that Mexico borrowed a lot of money against Cantarell's future production, and perhaps hoped to borrow more. Cantarell's "premature" decline is thus a real problem for them. So yeah, they have a lot of incentive to "fix" it with new production. Or rumors of such.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Mexico May Have Hit the Mother Lode in Oil Find..

Unread postby Bleep » Wed 15 Mar 2006, 13:51:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Eli', 'A')s an oil executive that is exactly what I would want to do, rush out invest billions, and hope against hope that it all does not end up sinking to the bottom of the GoM.


Remember Thunder Horse platform in the G o' M?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')url=http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13129-2086401,00.html]BP chiefs suffer bonus cuts as they pay for US accidents (link)[/url]
March 15, 2006

BP’s DEADLY Texas City refinery explosion and the near-sinking of the $1 billion (£570 million) Thunder Horse oil platform last year cost Lord Browne of Madingley, the chief executive, almost £500,000 in bonus payments.
User avatar
Bleep
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2006, 04:00:00

Re: Mexico May Have Hit the Mother Lode in Oil Find..

Unread postby frankthetank » Wed 15 Mar 2006, 13:58:54

Bus system around Cancun costs 6.5 Pesos...less then 65cents US, and there are a TON of buses that'll take you from Downtown to all the way to the bottom of the 7.

I had a Mexican tell me that I "feed his family"...not sure how that works...i bet most of what i spent went to some corporate bigwigs who knows where.
User avatar
frankthetank
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6202
Joined: Thu 16 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Southwest WI

Re: Mexico May Have Hit the Mother Lode in Oil Find..

Unread postby Bleep » Wed 15 Mar 2006, 14:13:14

Let's look at how much deep water Gulf of Mexico oil the Thunder Horse platform produced.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')url=http://www.bp.com/extendedgenericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7007227]BP Assessing Damage to Thunder Horse Platform in Gulf of Mexico (link)[/url]

Release date: 12 July 2005

HOUSTON (July 11, 2005)- BP today confirmed that the Thunder Horse semi-submersible platform, located in Mississippi Canyon Block 778 in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, 150 miles southeast of New Orleans, is listing following the passing of Hurricane Dennis. Early reports confirmed that the platform is listing an estimated 20 - 30 degrees. The Thunder Horse field is in development and has not yet begun production of hydrocarbons.

Why none at all before being clobbered. I wonder if it produced anything after that?
User avatar
Bleep
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Mexico May Have Hit the Mother Lode in Oil Find..

Unread postby Bleep » Wed 15 Mar 2006, 14:18:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')url=http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9004519&contentId=7009088]
First production in 2006 (link)[/url]

Originally scheduled for start of production by year-end 2005, first oil at the world’s largest floating platform has been delayed until the second half of 2006 as crews repair damage caused by flooding when the platform developed a serious list after it was evacuated as Hurricane Dennis approached in July 2005. Workers are also correcting defects in the platform’s ballast, bilge and fire water systems after incident investigators determined the failure of key valves allowed ballast water to shift within the platform, causing it to lean. The Thunder Horse platform subsequently weathered near hits by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

...

Platform production rating: 250,000 barrels of oil per day; 200 million cubic feet of gas per day

Is that potential or actual production? The wording is very strange.
User avatar
Bleep
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Mexico May Have Hit the Mother Lode in Oil Find..

Unread postby nth » Wed 15 Mar 2006, 14:23:50

ThunderHorse is not producing yet the last I heard.

This find and many more large fields will be discover in the next 20 years. I doubt any will be bigger than 20gb, but probably a handful will be around 10gb, while most will be in the 100+mb.

This field does not refute PO, but it does put a big dent on people who claim PO is in 2005.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Mexico May Have Hit the Mother Lode in Oil Find..

Unread postby Leanan » Wed 15 Mar 2006, 14:28:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his field does not refute PO, but it does put a big dent on people who claim PO is in 2005.


Hardly. Deffeyes ain't wrong yet.

Bubba, the oil industry insider at TOD had this to say:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hey likely do not have a very good idea of the size of the resource they have found based on one well. They are probably quoting the size of how big it "could be" if oil completely filled the structure that their geologists mapped. This is an unlikely situation.

A deep water oil discovery bigger than 1 billion barrels is huge. There is only one of those in the GOM (Thunderhorse - and it may not be bigger than 1 bbo). 10 bbo is unheard of for a deepwater field.


Even if it is as big as they hope, this oil won't be produced for years. And that's really what peak oil is all about. There's plenty of oil out there yet. Just not enough to make up for what we're losing to decline.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Mexico May Have Hit the Mother Lode in Oil Find..

Unread postby bruin » Wed 15 Mar 2006, 14:38:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', 'T')hunderHorse is not producing yet the last I heard.

This find and many more large fields will be discover in the next 20 years. I doubt any will be bigger than 20gb, but probably a handful will be around 10gb, while most will be in the 100+mb.

This field does not refute PO, but it does put a big dent on people who claim PO is in 2005.


Not necessarily. If the peak was 2005 (personally I'm thinking 2008), this fields will not produce for 10 years. And remember PO is about production rates. New Mexcian fields - Old Mexican fields = rate 2006 and so on.
User avatar
bruin
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu 09 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: CA, USA
Top

Re: Mexico May Have Hit the Mother Lode in Oil Find..

Unread postby Bleep » Wed 15 Mar 2006, 14:41:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', 'T')his field does not refute PO, but it does put a big dent on people who claim PO is in 2005.

So we are supposed to believe that Thunder Horse will be spared from the 2006 hurricane season?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')url=http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7002634143]UN Warns 2006 Hurricane Season Could Equal Last Year's (link)[/url]

The United Nations says the 2006 hurricane season could equal the unprecedented number of storms last year.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')url=http://www.sptimes.com/2006/03/13/Tampabay/Get_ready_to__hunker_.shtml]Get ready to 'hunker down' (link)[/url]
It looks more and more like another nerve-racking hurricane season.

Sea surface temperatures are above average, La Nina has returned and the Atlantic Basin remains in an "up" cycle for storms.
User avatar
Bleep
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Mexico May Have Hit the Mother Lode in Oil Find..

Unread postby nth » Wed 15 Mar 2006, 14:42:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his field does not refute PO, but it does put a big dent on people who claim PO is in 2005.


Hardly. Deffeyes ain't wrong yet.

Bubba, the oil industry insider at TOD had this to say:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hey likely do not have a very good idea of the size of the resource they have found based on one well. They are probably quoting the size of how big it "could be" if oil completely filled the structure that their geologists mapped. This is an unlikely situation.

A deep water oil discovery bigger than 1 billion barrels is huge. There is only one of those in the GOM (Thunderhorse - and it may not be bigger than 1 bbo). 10 bbo is unheard of for a deepwater field.


Even if it is as big as they hope, this oil won't be produced for years. And that's really what peak oil is all about. There's plenty of oil out there yet. Just not enough to make up for what we're losing to decline.


Of course, Deffeyes ain't wrong until oil production surpasses 2005 numbers. Which from what I have seen will definitely happen, but we will need to wait.

As far as this oil field is concern, it is all guess work as the actual numbers are never going to be available for us to see. 10bbo is unheard of because we just started looking at deep water. It is a stupid statement to make when the industry just started exploring these type of fields in the 1990's. Thunderhorse incorporates hundreds of new unproven technology in order to produce oil from its deep sea field. If Pemex is correct about this field, this maybe one of only a handful we will ever see in Deep Sea oil fields. Just think how many 10+ oil fields have we seen in non-deep sea or on land. Not that many.

As far as PO, we will hit it and hit within my lifetime. I have no doubt about it. I just don't believe 2005 is the number when new field analysis by other PO advocates show more than 12+mbpd of new production coming online in the next few years.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Mexico May Have Hit the Mother Lode in Oil Find..

Unread postby Dreamtwister » Wed 15 Mar 2006, 14:45:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('linlithgowoil', 'W')hy do people say that - defining it in how many days consumption it provides? It is nonsense. A field that size would produce for decades at impressive flow rates, so i've no idea why comparing it to how many days consumption it would provide.


Let's put it into some smaller numbers, so it's easier to follow.

Say Planet "A" consumes 20 barrels of oil per day. 10 barrels come from country "A", 5 barrels come from country "B" and 5 barrels come from country "C".

$this->bbcode_second_pass_code('', '
YEAR 1

A : 10
B : 05
C : 05
TOTAL : 20
')

Now, let's pretend that "C" is depleting at 1bbl/day/year. So in year 2, it will be:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_code('', '
YEAR 2

A : 10
B : 05
C : 04
TOTAL : 19
')

So now we have a production SHORTFALL of 1 barrel per day. "A" and "B" must increase their production to make up for "C"'s shortfall.

Now, if "B" suddenly discovers a new field containing 100,000 barrels ultimately recoverable, and can be extracted at a rate of 1 bbl/day, that's a huge boon for country "B". This new field will provide enough oil to fill "current demand" for 273 years at that rate. They can now make up for "C"'s shortfall.

Until "C"'s production declines in year 3.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_code('', '
YEAR 3

A : 10
B : 06
C : 03
TOTAL : 19
')

So even though "B" is getting rich off of their increased capacity, and will continue to do so for several centuries, they have in the long run done nothing to address the continued production declines worldwide. All they have done is add 1 more year before global decline.

Now, let's suppose some new technology becomes available in year 2 that allows "B" to increase production from their new find by 100%. Now, they can produce 2 bbl/day for 136 years. Now, year 3 will look like this:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_code('', '
YEAR 3 (Alternate)

A : 10
B : 07
C : 03
TOTAL : 20
')

Looks pretty good, doesn't it? Take a look at year 4:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_code('', '
YEAR 4

A : 10
B : 07
C : 02
TOTAL : 19
')

But you also have to consider that it may take as many as 10 years before "B" can bring it's new discovery online. By year 6, "C" will have ceased producing oil, leaving an increasing shortfall until year 10 when "B" comes online:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_code('', '
YEAR 2

A : 10
B : 05
C : 04
TOTAL : 19

YEAR 3

A : 10
B : 05
C : 03
TOTAL : 18

YEAR 4

A : 10
B : 05
C : 02
TOTAL : 17

YEAR 5

A : 10
B : 05
C : 01
TOTAL : 16

YEAR 6

A : 10
B : 05
C : 00
TOTAL : 15

(Shortfall of 5 bbl/day until year 10)

YEAR 10

A : 10
B : 06 (07)
C : 00
TOTAL : 16 (17)
')

Now, let's also pretend that "A", who has been quietly pumping out 50% of the world's oil for this whole exercise begins to decline in year 10:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_code('', '
YEAR 10 (Alternate)

A : 09
B : 06 (07)
C : 00
TOTAL : 15 (16)
')

This is why people use the "# of days at current usage" argument. It illustrates that even at technically impossible production rates, the discovery in question can have virtually no impact on the greater problem, which is global depletion. Eventually, "B"'s new field will be asked to produce the full 20bbl/day, which of course it cannot. But even if it could, it could *at best* do it for 13 years.

And of course, nothing in this example even attempts to account for an increase of demand, which IIRC is something like 2.3%/yr (please correct me if I'm wrong). but since planet "A" exists in a population-neutral alternate universe, it doesn't have to. :razz:
The whole of human history is a refutation by experiment of the concept of "moral world order". - Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
Dreamtwister
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2529
Joined: Mon 06 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Mexico To Strike Oil?

Unread postby AirlinePilot » Wed 15 Mar 2006, 14:49:12

Why isnt this getting more play? Something potentially this big I would think we would see and hear a lot more about. Is there anything to this? Seems like a big find unless its just more speculation on PEMEX's part.

Can't seem to find much about it.
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4378
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta

Re: Mexico May Have Hit the Mother Lode in Oil Find..

Unread postby nth » Wed 15 Mar 2006, 14:55:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bruin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', 'T')hunderHorse is not producing yet the last I heard.

This find and many more large fields will be discover in the next 20 years. I doubt any will be bigger than 20gb, but probably a handful will be around 10gb, while most will be in the 100+mb.

This field does not refute PO, but it does put a big dent on people who claim PO is in 2005.


Not necessarily. If the peak was 2005 (personally I'm thinking 2008), this fields will not produce for 10 years. And remember PO is about production rates. New Mexcian fields - Old Mexican fields = rate 2006 and so on.


I did not say this field refutes PO in 2005. I said it makes a big dent. If you add this to what is already in development to bring new oil online, it should extend PO a few years pass 2005. The only way to extend PO is by finding new fields that will replace old aging ones. If this field is 10+, then Mexico will have a second peak in its history of oil production. Since Pemex is underfunded, we will never know how fast they can get production up on this new field, so of course, this field in itself does not refute PO in 2005 and I never said that.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Mexico May Have Hit the Mother Lode in Oil Find..

Unread postby nth » Wed 15 Mar 2006, 14:57:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bleep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', 'T')his field does not refute PO, but it does put a big dent on people who claim PO is in 2005.

So we are supposed to believe that Thunder Horse will be spared from the 2006 hurricane season?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')url=http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7002634143]UN Warns 2006 Hurricane Season Could Equal Last Year's (link)[/url]

The United Nations says the 2006 hurricane season could equal the unprecedented number of storms last year.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')url=http://www.sptimes.com/2006/03/13/Tampabay/Get_ready_to__hunker_.shtml]Get ready to 'hunker down' (link)[/url]
It looks more and more like another nerve-racking hurricane season.

Sea surface temperatures are above average, La Nina has returned and the Atlantic Basin remains in an "up" cycle for storms.


I am not predicting if hurricane will hit Thunderhorse. I just know that Thunderhorse is capable of withstanding certain hurricanes. I also know that Thunderhorse was not in production prior to hurricane damage. From what I understand, the hurricane setback their development. I have no idea if the hurricane did or will damage the underground oil production system.

Thunderhorse is only going to produce 200kmpd. I doubt it plays a big role in PO.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Mexico May Have Hit the Mother Lode in Oil Find..

Unread postby Bleep » Wed 15 Mar 2006, 15:08:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', 'T')hunderhorse is only going to produce 200kmpd. I doubt it plays a big role in PO.

Well this thread is about a Gulf of Mexico deep water discovery. I doubt it will play a big role in PO either.
User avatar
Bleep
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Mexico May Have Hit the Mother Lode in Oil Find..

Unread postby Leanan » Wed 15 Mar 2006, 15:18:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')f course, Deffeyes ain't wrong until oil production surpasses 2005 numbers. Which from what I have seen will definitely happen, but we will need to wait.


Anything's possible, but I think Deffeyes will prove right.

Image

(Courtesy of Stuart at TheOilDrum.)

That looks like a bumpy plateau to me. If Hirsch's work is correct, it won't last long. The peak is sudden and unexpected. You never see it coming.

Sure, there will be lots of oil coming online next year. But how much will Ghawar, Cantarell, Burgan, and others have declined by then? Prudhoe Bay was a huge find, but it wasn't enough to change the U.S. peak. It was just a bump on the downslope.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron